WILFREDO P. VERZOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS[G.R. Nos. 119511-13. November 24, 1998]
Facts:
• Fe Uson failed to pay her entire obligation to Verzosa,
prompting the latter to have the mortgage foreclosed.
• Defendant Verzosa filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
• The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was not
personally verified by plaintiff Fe Uson.
• Fe Uson filed a motion for reconsideration which was
granted by the court.
• Then, filed her
amended complaint which bears the proper verification.
• the trial court issued an order admitting the amended
complaint of Fe Uson.
• At this point, Verzosa filed with the Court of Appeals
for certiorari. He alleged that the said order, admitting the
amended complaint was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue:
The Court of
Appeals erred in not taking into account or dealing squarely with the nature,
effects and proper interpretation and/or application of the doctrine on
amendment of pleadings/complaints to the instant case.
Held:
It follows that when the amended complaint does not
introduce new issues, causes of action, or demands, the suit is deemed to have
commenced on the date the original complaint was filed, not on the date of the
filing of the amended complaint. In other words, for demands already
included in the original complaint, the suit is deemed to have commenced upon
the filing of such original complaint. In short, for purposes of
determining the commencement of a suit, the original complaint is deemed
abandoned and superseded by the amended complaint only if the amended complaint
introduces a new or different cause of action or demand.
Hence, it has been held that an amendment which merely
supplements and amplifies the facts originally alleged relates back to the date
of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of
limitations, the period of which expires after service of the original
complaint but before service of amendment. It is the actual filing in court
that controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading. The Court in Republic v. Marsman[elucidated:
0 Comments